From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sun May 26 2002 - 01:27:18 MDT
Reason wrote:
>
> ---> Samantha Atkins
>
>
>>Reason wrote:
>>
>>
>>>[Aside: you know, I really don't think anyone arguing back and
>>>
>>forth in the
>>
>>>past few days on this and similar topics really disagree on
>>>
>>ethics/morals.
>>
>>>It's all factual/societal-opinion-as-fact items that are being
>>>
>>debated. Very
>>
>>>similar to the current abortion debate. e.g. what is human, what is the
>>>value of a potential human, etc, etc.].
>>>
>>>
>>Some of us here apparently very much disagree on ethics and
>>morals or at least what should be a matter of social ethics - of
>>law. Some of us very much disagree on language equating infants
>>to animals and of "low replacement cost" and claiming women are
>>less valuable than men and more subject to some assumed huge
>>negative memetic influence. I don't consider that decent
>>coffee-table discussion and I certainly don't consider remotely
>>material I feel like slogging through on a list that is supposed
>>to be about (I thought) creating a bighly viable and wide-open
>>future.
>>
>>Please do not pretend that some of the opinions expressed are
>>civilized or that they are just ideas and arguing points with
>>no practical ties to the real world. If the latter were true
>>then the dicussion would be even more pointless and twisted.
>>
>
> [Civilized = something that Samantha agrees with or feels comfortable with],
> apparently.
>
If you believe that, that it is all relative or subjective, then
it is no wonder we are having a difficult time communicating.
> Actually, it would seem that the major difference between you and most of
> the other posters is that you advocate or tend towards magical thinking
> while they advocate or tend towards the scientific method. This may be an
> ethical difference, or simply a difference in assumed metafacts, I'm not
> sure.
>
Magical thinking is a derogatory term for my position and using
it is unfair and inaccurate communication. The scientific
method is not sufficient for all things. The notion that it is
is not itself even scenitifically verifiable or testable. I
attempt to point out that we must project the values we want to
see in the future we attempt to create and not just fall into
sceintific mumbling while much of crucial importance to our real
lives and future is ignored as "un-scientific", "irrational", or
"magical".
> With regards to your first paragraph there, equating infants to animals
> using some set of criteria is a factual discussion, or a conclusion arrived
> at by a society by consensus. Either you subscribe to this fact/opinion and
> its justifications or you don't. No ethics involved at all until you get to
> deciding what you're going to do based on those agreed facts. More or less
> everyone here agrees that it's bad to just jump up and hurt a human, but
> it's ok to destroy something that needs a lot of work to get to be human
> (skin cell, stem cell, etc). After that, it's just a matter of definitions
> and drawing lines down the middle.
>
Equating infants (and indeed all humans) to animals using some
set of criteria is not the problem. Assuming that that equation
means it is quite alright to kill infants (at least if one
"owns" them) is quite something else again! The fact (an
infant is an animal) does not let to the conclusion (it is
alright to kill them if you wish and have ownership rights).
The idea that ownership rights apply or apply to this degree is
another conclusion not inevitable from the facts.
I draw my line well before the point of saying that killing
infants is ok and trying to claim that they are not even human
or claims they are relatively valueless. I feel nothing but
utter contempt for a view that women are of less value than men.
No future I remotely want to be a part of would "draw the line"
on the other side.
> Whether or not you find it pleasant to think about, many similar things
> (value of people, value of infants, value of races) have been settled on in
> a consensus manner in radically different ways in different times and
> societies. Many "civilized" and complex societies have declared whole
> segments of what is currently considered humanity to be objects of little
> value.
>
We consider setting one race as of more value as the worse kind
of bigotry. We consider setting some people as more valuable
generally (rather than in some particular context or in relation
to certain capabilities) as very questionable. The question is
not whether different societies have decided certain questions
in different ways. The burning question is how we will decide
and whether we will decide in terms of the kind of world we wish
to build and inhabit or will use our much vaunted brains to
effectively dissect our own hearts and thoroughly miss the point.
> This whole thing originally came about as a result of querying where to draw
> the line between human and non-human, and assigning a value to potential
> humans. This is an eminently valid discussion. If human societies can't deal
No problem with that in some aspects. There is a problem in
other aspects where you believe things below the line can/should
be treated in any arbitrary manner you might see fit.
> with this now (vis abortion debate, racial tensions, societal values placed
> on various people of types), what makes you think a transhuman society --
Racial tensions have zip to do with any real important
differences between the value of different races. Seeing people
as types instead of as persons is naturally fraught with danger.
> with an infinitely greater set of potential humans and types of intelligent
> entity -- is going to do better without some work? Burying your head in the
When entities are much more advanced than ourselves or even our
uploaded selves, would it be ok if they decided that we did not
have any meaningful rights, not even the right to exist? Why or
why not? If we do not think proactively rather than reactively
about these questions and project what we wish to live in, then
we cannot expect anything but the arbitrary cogitation of some
other sentient who either doesn't have or also ignores its own
"heart" and the projection of what kind of present and future it
is creating.
> sand and refusing to talk about the values societies have placed, currently
> place and could conceivably place on human and potentially human life is not
> constructive. Follow that route and you end up with a) smartcats as
I was not in the least burying my head in the sand. Quite far
from it! I was arguing for why this talk is much beside the
point and extremely unhelpful when it veils de-valuing of women
and infants, and for what I believe is missing in some of this
talk.
> disregarded property, b) slave AIs that are destroyed when no longer needed,
> c) humans created for specific tasks and broken down for organs when done.
> If you see c) as being much more disturbing that a) or b) then I say you
> have some hard thinking to do.
>
I see all of them as things that we should strive to avoid
except that I do not believe our current notions of property
should apply in all realms or that they are problem-free.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:22 MST